- Kinderfarms LLC v. Genexa Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · PGR2023-00051 · APJ Deborah Katz · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over FR458 with the ’4666 patent and WO133; claims 1–17 are also unpatentable over WO742 with the ’4666 patent and WO133.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ positions about the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar. (See Pet., 13–14; see PO Resp., 10–12.) In light of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a bachelor of science degree in a relevant life sciences field, such as chemistry, biochemistry, or pharmacy, with at least three to four years of work or laboratory experience in pharmaceutical formulations and would have had access to team members having experience in pharmaceutical formulation and pharmaceutical regulatory approvals. (See Pet. 13–14; see PO Resp. 10–12; see Dec. 6–7.) Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’795 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Although Petitioner puts forth constructions for terms in the claims of the ’795 patent, Patent Owner argues that we need not expressly construe any terms to resolve the controversy between the parties. (See Pet. 14–19; see PO Resp. 12.) Except as indicated below, we agree that express construction of the claim terms is not required because the parties do not materially dispute the meanings of the terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Limitation (c) of claim 1 recites “syrup formulation” once and then “syrup” by itself twice. The parties agree that two recitations of “syrup” by itself mean and are synonymous with “syrup formulation.” (See Tr. 15:16– 19 (counsel for Petitioner: “[T]he term, syrup, by itself, means the formulation. And for that reason, we--it’s our position that it’s the syrup formulation that has the specific viscosity requirements as well as the other features that we discussed.”); 31:17–20 (counsel for Patent Owner: “But those wherein clauses, what it’s referring to, the syrup formulation and the syrup -- it was all to a complete to a final formulation, right, it’s not just the agave syrup. Everybody here recognizes and understands that from that perspective.”).) Thus, the parties agree that the “viscosity of less than 1500 centipoise at about 22 degrees” limits the final “pharmaceutical syrup formulation for oral administration,” not the “agave syrup” limitation in limitation (b) of claim 1.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues further that Dr. Crowley testifies that, “[g]enerally, suspensions having a viscosity in the range of 20 to 150 cP are considered readily pourable,” but that this range is well below the viscosity range of 200–900 cP taught in WO133 and the preferred viscosity range of 1000–3000 cP taught in the ’4666 patent. (See PO Resp. 45 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 59).) Dr. Crowley testifies that “increasing the viscosity of a suspension formulation has been shown to impair the dissolution characteristics of immediate release acetaminophen” and that, “[w]ith respect to suspensions for oral administration, having a higher viscosity is generally not desirable.” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 59.) According to Patent Owner, this is a “teaching away” because Petitioner’s own expert testimony demonstrates a motivation not to combine the acetaminophen formulation of FR458- Example 1 with the 1000-3000 cP range of the ’4666 patent and the 200-900 cP range of WO133 since by his own admission doing so would yield bad results (i.e., impairing the dissolution characteristics of the acetaminophen) and generally undesirable higher viscosity. (PO Resp. 46 (citing Berkland Decl., Ex. 2009 ¶ 148).) Dr. Crowley’s cited testimony, however, is about general characteristics of suspensions for oral administration, whereas the WO133 refers specifically to sweetened analgesic formulations. (See Ex. 1006, 8:1– 3 (“The viscosity of the acetaminophen composition generally ranges from about 200–900 centipoise, preferably from about 300–700 centipoise.”); see Pet. Reply 8–9.) As Petitioner notes, Dr. Crowley also testifies that the viscosity of 29 commercially available, pediatric liquid oral antibiotic formulations were measured and determined to range from 20 to 1,780 cP” and that “[t]he viscosity of Children’s Tylenol has been reported to be less than 1,000 centipoise at shear rates between 0.05 and 0.2 reciprocal seconds.” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 58.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Dr. Crowley’s testimony contradicts the teachings regarding viscosity of analgesic formulations in the cited prior art.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,617,795 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,617,795 - PTAB · Mar 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01406 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 4, 8–13, and 15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Takeuchi anticipates those claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2023). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’202 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 4, 8–13, and 15 of the ’202 patent. A. Real Parties in Interest” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“or “POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and three to four years of experience, or a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and one to two years of experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13). Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch experience would include a familiarity with thermal fluid delivery devices and/or the components and underlying technology used therein, and a higher level of 1 US 5,249,586, issued Oct. 5, 1993 (Ex. 1004, “Morgan”). 2 EP 0 845 220 B1, published Jan. 26, 1998 (Ex. 1006, “Susa”). 3 US 2005/0205084 A1, published Sept. 22, 2005 (Ex. 1007, “Gupta”). 4 US 6,155,268, issued Dec. 5, 2000 (Ex. 1009, “Takeuchi”). at 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13). Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner maintains that Petitioners’ arguments fail even under Petitioners’ POSA definition.” Prelim. Resp. 13. On this record, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’202 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 6
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“term “wicked into contact” that the Board adopted in a prior inter partes review proceeding that addressed the same term in an earlier, related patent. Pet. 7 (citing IPR2020-01602, Paper 32 at 8–15 (PTAB March 30, 2022)). ‘wicked into contact’ to mean: ‘wicked into contact (1) with the heater, or (2) with an area in close proximity to, and exposed [to] the heat produced by, the heater,’” and “[t]he present Petition adopts this formal construction for purposes of this IPR proceeding.” Id. (citing IPR2020-01602, Paper 32 at 15). Patent Owner also “adopts this construction for purposes of” the Preliminary Response, and argues that “Petitioner’s grounds fail even under its proposed construction of ‘wicked into contact.’” Prelim. Resp. 13. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the Board’s prior construction of “wicked into contact,” namely, “wicked into contact (1) with the heater, or (2) with an area in close proximity to, and exposed to the heat produced by, the heater,” which is undisputed on this record. See Philip Morris Products, S.A. v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-01602, Paper 32 at 8–15 (PTAB March 30, 2022). C. Asserted Anticipation by Morgan” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot reached
“To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “A reference may anticipate inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed is ‘necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.’” In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Based on the current record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Morgan discloses “a storage compartment . . . being arranged such that the liquid aerosol-forming material can be wicked into contact with the electrical resistance heater to volatilize the liquid aerosol-forming material” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01289 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7, 11–15, 17, 19, and 27–29 were unpatentable over Cantor, Cantor and Armani, or Frisen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least 1 claim of the ’022 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not argue that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 20. Likewise, Patent Owner takes the position that “no claim terms require explicit construction” for purposes of determining whether to institute inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 20. We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 20. Because Petitioner’s unopposed definition is consistent with the ’022 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt that definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579–80 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “[n]ot only does Cantor not teach contacting a ‘tissue sample’ with beads, but Cantor comes nowhere close to suggesting that its beads could be contacted with a tissue sample to identify spatial location.” Prelim. Resp. 50. Here, we are persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Cantor, sole inventor of Cantor (Ex. 2002 ¶ 29), that Cantor’s nucleic acid samples are made in bulk from the extraction of nucleic acids from biological material and mixed together “to create the sample nucleic acid prior to mixing that with the solid phase nucleic acids to capture molecule(s) from the sample nucleic acid.” Id. at ¶ 17. More specifically, “nucleic acids are extracted from the different types of cells within a tissue sample without preserving their spatial distribution.” Id. at ¶ 19. Thus, these types of “bulk-analysis techniques provide no information about spatial location of biological molecules in tissue samples.” Id. at ¶ 17. While we recognize that Cantor discloses “providing the beads according to an (X,Y) array” (Pet. 39, citing to Dr. Puglisi, Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 65– 66), this disclosure makes no mention of using this array to map where the nucleic acids of Cantor came from relative to the original sample, let alone when that original sample is a tissue. See e.g. Ex. 1031, 17. The only mentions of “tissue” made in Cantor are in reference to where the sample may be obtained, for example, “[t]he biological sample can be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue.” Id. at 6. Cantor provides no teaching, however, regarding how to use a tissue sample with the probes and methods described in Cantor to identify where the target nucleic acids of Cantor were spatially located within the tissue sample itself. Incidental to the parties’ dispute is whether Petitioner’s reliance on and characterization of Cantor’s use of the terms “sample” and “nucleic acid sample” as equivalent in meaning to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims is persuasive. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1031, 6). Here, we note that Cantor discloses that “[s]ample nucleic acid may be derived from one or more samples or sources.” Ex. 1031, 5; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 35, 149. Cantor refers to “sample” as the thing that contains the sample nucleic acid. Ex. 1031, 5. For example, Cantor discloses that “[a] sample may be collected from an organism.” Ex. 1031, 6; Ex. 2002 ¶ 42. When a “sample” comes from a living (or formerly living) source, Cantor refers to that sample as a “biological sample,” which can “be in any form, including without limitation a solid material such as a tissue, cells, a cell pellet, a cell extract, or a biopsy, or a biological fluid . . . .” Id. Those samples, however, are further processed in bulk to obtain the nucleic acid sample. For example, Cantor discloses that the “sample nucleic acid may be a result of nucleic acid purification or isolation and/or amplification of nucleic acid molecules from the sample.” Ex. 1031, 7; see also id. at 54 (The “sample nucleic acid” is derived from a sample or source “by any means commonly known in the art, including but not limited to cell lysis procedures using chemical, physical or electrolytic lysis methods.”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 39. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s attempts to characterize Cantor’s “nucleic acid sample” as synonymous to “tissue sample” recited in the challenged claims. Rather, we agree with Dr. Cantor that “[a] tissue is simply the source of the sample nucleic acid used in [Cantor’s] methods”—it is not the sample nucleic acid itself. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 36, 150. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence to the contrary.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,480,022 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01295 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Shaffer and Saylor; the Board did not reach the alternative Gogic and Opitz ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“1. Shaffer (Ex. 1004) Shaffer is a U.S. Patent Application Publication published on” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“1. Rationale to Combine Shaffer and Saylor Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would” slip op. at 23
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 of U.S. Patent 8,994,830 B2 are unpatentable on the bases set forth in the following table. Claim(s)” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 8,994,830 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,994,830 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–17, and 20 as obvious over Kim; claims 3–5, 13, 14, 18, and 19 over Kim and Ishibashi; and claim 10 over Kim and Goss.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 5; see also id. (“A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.”). Patent Owner very similarly proposes that the skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two to three years [of] experience in designing or developing telecommunication systems.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶42). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’664 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“16). We generally agree, with the one caveat acknowledged by counsel for Patent Owner during the hearing. The caveat is that, although step [a] must be performed before step [b], it is within the scope of claim 1 if step [a] continues to be performed even after step [b] begins. Tr. 25:25–26:3 (Mr. Engel: “Well, I think in practicality, there would always be monitoring because there’s multiple media streams. So, you could have multiple alerts come in and the system could decide which one is more important. So, I don’t think you stop monitoring per se.”). We agree that continued performance of step [a], even after step [b] begins, is within the scope of claim 1. Second, Patent Owner proposes that “endpoint” means “end-user device,” as agreed to in district court. PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004, 16). We adopt this construction. However, as will become evident below, this construction does little to address the actual dispute between the parties regarding application of “endpoint” to the prior art asserted in Ground 7 (Kim). Third, Patent Owner proposes that “media stream” means “audio or video or both, which may include associated data,” as adjudicated in district court. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004, 42). We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Analogous artUnpatentable
“2. Combination of Kim and Ishibashi Petitioner argues that both references are from the same field of endeavor as the ’664 patent, namely emergency communication systems. Pet. 80 (citing various portions of Exhibits 1001, 1008, and 1009). We are persuaded of this fact, which, in any event, Patent Owner does not dispute. See PO Resp. 57 (arguing against Ground 8 solely on the basis of its Ground 7 arguments). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,831,664 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664 - Billerud Aktiebolag (Publ) v. Westrock MWV, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 12, 2025 · IPR2023-01206 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 25–26 are allowed, while 24 and 27 are denied for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are also not admissible as expert testimony because Mr. Wirén is not “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 703. “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Mr. Wirén does not meet our definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Section II.B, supra. That definition is based on the undisputed testimony of Messrs. Zotterman and Klass. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. Although Mr. Wirén has a Master’s of Science in chemical engineering, he lacks any experience or specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 2011, 12:1–10, 19:6–25, 20:2–7. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Exhibits 1013 and 1014 are the testimony of Mr. Wirén and should be excluded from evidence because Mr. Wirén is not a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. PO MTE 5–6, 9; Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Unless a patent lawyer is also a qualified technical” slip op. at 61
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based on the testimony of the parties’ witnesses, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related degree, with three to five years of experience in paperboard manufacturing, or a master’s degree in paper science and engineering, chemical engineering, process engineering, or mechanical engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in paperboard manufacturing. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; Ex. 2003 ¶ 26. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’142 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“A claim construction that excludes a particular element is viewed as a “negative limitation.” Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). “[S]uch exclusions must find support either in ‘the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.’” Id. (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” Id. (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Similarly, disclaimer or disavowal requires that the specification or prosecution history demonstrate that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id. Here, we find no claim language, lexicography, or disclaimer in the ’142 Patent or its file history that would support defining a “hot-hard calender” as requiring that only one of the two rollers be heated to an elevated temperature.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“a contact surface of said thermo-roller is heated to an elevated temperature of at least 250°F.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the temperature limitation is taught by the combination of Fugitt and Papermaking. Pet. 32–34. Fugitt discloses that “[t]he rolls of the calender may be steam heated.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 26. In a section titled “Heated Rolls,” Papermaking discloses that “Steam can be used up to 170°C [338°F] surface temperature.” Ex. 1010, 95, 98. Petitioner is thus correct that, “[w]hile Fugitt teaches that a hot calender may be steam heated, Papermaking clarifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that steam heated thermo-rollers may reach up to 338°F.” Pet. 36. Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded by Mr. Zotterman’s testimony that it would have been “obvious to heat the thermo-roller of Fugitt to at least 250°F.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 159. combine Fugitt and Papermaking because of Papermaking’s status as a “trusted handbook[],” because both references disclose a method of manufacturing a paperboard structure with hot calendering,” and “because of the known advantages of heated rollers.” Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157, 159, 162. Petitioner’s contention is supported by Papermaking’s disclosures that, for cartonboard, “[p]recalendering is used before the coater to reduce roughness and porosity” and “[h]igh thermo roll temperatures (in some cases over 200°C) result in bulk savings because of the temperature gradient.” Ex. 1005, 80–82; see also Pet. 38; Ex. 1003 ¶ 164 (citing these disclosures). Papermaking’s disclosed range of “up to 170°C [338°F]” for steam- heated rolls (Ex. 1010, 98), overlaps the claimed range of “at least 250°F.” Patent Owner agrees. Tr. 27:11–13. “If the relevant comparison between a disputed claim limitation and the prior art pertains to a range of overlapping values, ‘. . . even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.’” Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 946 F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “[S]uch an overlap creates a presumption of obviousness, and . . . the burden of production falls upon the patentee to come forward with pertinent evidence that the overlapping range would not have been obvious in light of the prior art.” Id. (citing E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 11,293,142 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,293,142 - Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · PGR2024-00049 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show the patent was eligible for PGR; the challenged claims were supported by the 2006 priority application.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006. 2. Conclusion: PGR Eligibility For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the ’202 patent has, or had, at least one claim having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, we determine that the ’202 patent is entitled to the filing date of the ’634 application (October 18, 2006), and, thus, the ’202 patent is not eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, the ’202 patent consistently and repeatedly characterizes the invention as incorporating tobacco in some form and ties the stated benefits of the invention to the inclusion of tobacco. Moreover, the Specification is directed to smoking articles containing tobacco, all of the embodiments include tobacco, and “the present invention” is described as a smoking article, where the smoking article includes tobacco. Consequently, we determine that “smoking article” as it is used in the challenged claims is limited to devices that include tobacco. See Mosaic Brands, Inc. v. Ridge Wallet LLC, 55 F.4th 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (finding claimed “lip” is limited to “extrudable plastic materials” where specification states that “the device of the present invention is constructed of extrudable plastic materials” and “emphasizes the benefits of using extrudable plastics and describes them as benefits of the invention as a whole”); Poly-Am., L.P. v. described in the specification has inwardly extended short seals and every section of the specification indicates the importance of inwardly extended short seals. These two facts provide together a proper reason to limit the claims in this way.”); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s argument is dependent on accepting Petitioner’s assertion that the claims include a smoking article that does not contain tobacco, which we have not done. Instead, as set forth above, we construe “smoking article” as being limited to devices that include tobacco. See § II.B.2, supra. Based on our construction of “smoking article” and the evidence of record in this proceeding, we determine that the challenged claims are supported by the specification of the ’202 patent, which is identical to the specification of all of the continuations in the chain leading back to the October 18, 2006 that the specification of the ’202 patent and every patent in its priority chain “have identical specifications”); Prelim. Resp. 13 (noting that Petitioner does not identify other limitations in the challenged claims “allegedly lacking support in the ’202 patent family’s applications dating back to U.S. App. No. 11/550,634, filed on October 18, 2006”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims lack written support in the Specification (and the ’634 application). That is, on this record, it appears that the challenged claims properly claim priority to the ’634 application and, accordingly, have an effective filing date in October 2006.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 1–10 unpatentable as obvious over Krassner, Badros, and Harkins; it did not reach the alternative Badros and Harkins ground.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“On August 16, 2024, Petitioner filed a Request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision. Paper 73 (“Req.”). Patent Owner opposed the Request. Paper 77. On December 12, 2024, Director Vidal granted the Request and entered a Director Decision. Paper 78 (“Director Dec.”). The Director Decision states that “Petitioner persuasively shows that Badros discloses the viewability test.” Director Dec. 9. Accordingly, the Director Decision vacated the Previous FWD, and remanded back to us for further proceedings. Id. at 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 and pursuant to the Director’s Decision. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–10 of the ’329 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience in computer programming with at least one year of said experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,’ this determination is frequently couched in terms of whether the art is analogous or not, i.e., whether the art is ‘too remote to be treated as prior art.’” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658–59.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,443,329 - Ecto World, LLC / Sv3, LLC v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01280 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–30 because the asserted art was previously presented to the Office and Petitioner did not show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework for evaluating arguments under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). In applying this framework, we consider the Becton, Dickinson1 factors that address discretion to deny institution when a petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, including:” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, physics, or an equivalent field, as well as 3–4 years of industry experience, or a master’s degree in the above fields, and 1–2 “[s]uch a POSA would have been familiar with electrically powered smoking articles and/or the components and underlying technology used therein.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of the Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner maintains that Petitioners’ arguments fail even under Petitioners’ POSA definition.” Prelim. Resp. 13. On this record, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposed definition because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’202 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,925,202 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01292 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 17–21 are unpatentable over Ohel; claims 5 and 11–16 were not shown unpatentable over Ohel or Nigawara.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Williams, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the parties’ citations to the specification and find examples that support Petitioner’s view that the term “entity” is broad enough to encompass dispatchers and individual users. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:52–4:5, 7:18–20, Fig. 1). However, we find no disclosure that redefines “entity” or excludes dispatchers and individual users from the category of “entity.” Patent Owner’s best examples (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–21, 3:59–62) are no more than non-limiting examples. On the complete record, we conclude that “entity” is broad enough to include dispatchers and individual users.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached
“have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 7,324,802 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,324,802
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.